Pastor Scott's Thoughts

Can the Church Find Unity? - Reflections After Reading Peter Leithart's "The End of Protestantism"

There are books for me that earn the distinction of having messed with my imagination. I recently finished reading Peter Leithart's book The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, and even in the midst of reading it I knew he was messing me up in so many good ways. This is my first Leithart read, but I'm already deep into my second. I got tired of seeing him in the footnotes of some of my favorite writers and so decided to take him on myself. I highly recommend this one for pastors and those who care deeply about the future of the church globally.

The book begins with a Biblical call to unity in the church and a deep confession and recognition that our current state of division is not what Jesus prayed for and desired - nor is it what the world needs in order to be able to see that a new creation is breaking in. The second section is an amazing exploration on the rise of denominationalism since the Reformation. Although Leithart acknowledges some of the very good things that have happened due to the explosion of denominations, he offers a remarkably insightful critique of not only the inherent flaws of a global Church divided by denominations, but also of the unique American varieties of denominations and non-denominational movements. (His critique of the American church is worth the price of the book). In the last third of the book Leithart not only imagines what a globally unified church might look like, but he also points to current moments of upheaval and change as signs that perhaps God is working to bring about the unity Christ prayed for and toward which the Spirit is moving. For Leithart, what may seem like a tearing down and an up-rooting may be the beginnings of God's new planting of unity.

There is so much in The End of Protestantism that is worthing pondering and debating. But here are three thoughts or reflections that I have had since finishing the book that I can't quite get away from.

First, reading the book made me realize that I have very little imagination for unity. At one point Leithart writes, "Paul expected - demanded - that the church's unity be visible in table fellowship, in loyalties and allegiances, in the names Christians adopt for themselves. The unity of the church is not an invisible reality that renders visible things irrelevant. It is future reality that gives present actions their orientation and meaning. Things are what they are as anticipations of what they will be" (p. 19). I have said similar things in sermons about Paul. The great apostle could not imagine starting a church for Gentiles and another for Jews. For those two divided groups to find unity in the Spirit was, for Paul, a sign that the new creation was breaking in.

I preach those things... but in reading the book I realized I don't really have an imagination for ecclesiological unity. I confess that I have settled for trying to be a leader in a small fragment of the Body of Christ, but I have very little imagination for actual Christian unity. The unity of the Church is clearly part of the immeasurably more than I currently have the ability to hope or imagine.

Second, Leithart's exposition of the American church exposes that what is best about the American church is also killing it. Leithart argues that the two things that make the American church unique are its commitment to civil religion and its connection to the market. Again, the chapter on the American church is SO GOOD. I have said so much and have gotten in so much trouble for wanting the American church to separate itself from its history of nationalistic idolatry that I'm going to leave it alone here. 

However, Leithart argues that part of what has made the American church "great" (or at least more alive than the European church) is the way it has been shaped by a market economy. For Leithart, the European church slowly separated itself from the older state church monopolies. In America, however, the church - following a market economy - kept innovating and offering itself in new and ever more "relevant" forms to possible constituents (or customers). On the one hand, this was great because it kept the church flowing with new energy and ideas. But on the other hand, it formed people into the very thing it was offering. People ceased to become worshippers and members and rather became consumers of faith and the customers of an ever more innovative church. As I often say, the church ceased to become something we are and became a place people go (to shop for the goods of Jesus). Here are a couple of my favorite quotes:

American denominationalism was not the end point of a long process of de-monopolization, as it has been in Europe. It is the original condition of American Christianity... In a pluralist situation religion becomes a shopping mall, and when religious consumers realize they are making choices, they also realize that their choices might have been different. Religion becomes relative rather than absolute, subjective rather than objectively given. Religion weakens. Tolerance increases. Zeal cools (p. 65).

Recent studies of American religion have emphasized its consumerist character: Americans shop for churches. Again, that is not a flaw but a design feature of American Christianity. It dissolves the norms of doctrine and practice, transforming them from norms into consumer options. Our divisions come to seem "normal," the "natural expression of a Christian marketplace with churches representing different options for a variety of spiritual tastes." A marketplace ideology thus "can anesthetize us to the wound of division." And it seduces us into thinking of the church, or our particular brand of church, as a consumer choice (p. 79).

There is so much here to think about. If Leithart is correct, what has made the American church "great" is the imprint of the market (and its placating American individualism). But that is also what has turned pastors into managers and worshippers into consumers. Our people leave for the new and exciting because that is what we have formed them to do. That's how we "got" them in the first place. This is the American church's version of Frankenstein's monster.

Finally, I am struck by the conviction that God may be tearing down and destroying so that he can replant and build up something new. I was reading a blog from another pastor a few weeks ago decrying the declining stats of the North American church (in this case the Church of the Nazarene). The focus was thoughtful, but it was also a typical American response to the problem. The Nazarene Church in North America is declining because we have failed to keep up with change. We have not been innovative. We have not dared to be creative. We have failed to pay attention to the needs (more likely wants) of the coming generations...

I don't doubt that at some level all of that is true. But I will admit to being exhausted of trying to throw only technical and market solutions to what may indeed be spiritual and theological problems. The problem may indeed be the message we are offering and not just the hipness, relevance, and cultural savvy of the messenger.

However, more than that, the gnawing feeling I have - and that Leithart raises as a possibility - is that our nationalistic, homogenous, market-driven forms of Christianity are in the process of being torn down by God, so that a people that better reflects the unifying prayer of Jesus and the "unity in diversity" work of the Spirit of Pentecost can be planted and re-built. What we may be experiencing is not just the failure of culturally uncreative pastors but the birth pangs of a new creation. 

As I have said elsewhere in writing about exile, no one wants to be a leader during times that resemble exile. I would rather be on Solomon's retirement plan for priests than hiding in a cave with Elijah. But if this is a time of contraction for the American church so that we can relearn faithfulness, or if this is a time in which denominations are falling apart so that the beauty of a holy, unified, diverse, and global church might be re-birthed... blessed be the name of the Lord. He gives a takes away... My heart will choose to say. Lord, blessed be your name.

I sincerely hope that is not the case. Maybe the answer is offering fewer theology and more leadership courses in seminary. (I fear that attitude only exacerbates the very problem that is killing us). But it could be the case that God is up to something new.

I hope God can give me the imagination for it. And I hope I get to serve long enough to see some of that unity come to fruition.

An Ode to the Virtuous Layman

Today at Nampa College Church we held a memorial service for Gene Clark. Over the last two years, Gene has been a blessing in my life as a pastor. Each time I saw him at church, at home, or in the hospital, I was always greeted with a smile, with warmth, and usually with a reminder that I am his favorite pastor.

I struggled to find the right text to describe Gene and his love of God and his care for the church. And so I wrote something a bit theologically risky – perhaps even borderline heretical. I rewrote a well-known biblical text in Gene’s honor.

Historically, the church - although more often than not led by men - has found its day-to-day life sustained by the presence of its faithful women. Every church has a long list of saintly women who have been the lifeblood of every congregation. Pastors know that the second most important Sunday of the year - after Easter - is Mother’s Day. Father’s Day on the other hand… is not so important. People come to worship with their mothers. People skip church and go to the baseball game or go play 18 holes with their fathers.

Nevertheless, every great church I have been a part of or led has had at least one great layman – a man who is or was faithful, persistent, and steady. I promise you that every pastor can name that key layman who kept the church going before you arrived, supported the church while you were there, and kept the church moving after you left. The names of those men were always revered in my house: names like Paul Hill, John Wordsworth, Norm Hagen, Dave Peterson, Mike Bell, Rusty Williams, Phil Lindquist, Neil Rimington, Larry Rench, Chuck Young, Henry Yu… and now most recently Gene Clark.

So I’d like to take one of the great odes in Scripture – Proverbs 31 - and reframe it in Gene’s honor and in the honor of the great laymen I have known in my life. The great sage of biblical wisdom is correct; every husband desperately needs a virtuous wife. But I’m here to tell you: every pastor desperately needs a virtuous layman.

An Ode to a Virtuous Layman (Based on Proverbs 31)

A virtuous layman, how does one find him?

His value is far above pearls.

His worth is far above gold.

His pastor trusts him with all the church’s secrets.

In him the pastor has a spiritual wingman, a holy sidekick, a righteous partner-in-crime.

A virtuous layman fills a pastor’s ministry with many blessings and few headaches.

A virtuous layman always rounds up when they tithe.

He always shows up for church work-days.

He never forgets pastor appreciation month, and he cares for the pastor like they are part of his family.

He is the first to arrive on Sunday morning to make sure the lights and heat are on.

When the big snow comes, he shows up before dark with his gloves and his shovel.

You never have to worry about leaving him in charge of the resources;

His integrity, honesty, and stewardship are never questioned.

The virtuous layman is always thinking about the church’s wellbeing.

In board meetings he consistently brings the right balance of caution and faith.

He doesn’t always need to be heard, but when he speaks people listen because they know it will be with wisdom and courage.

He doesn’t expect others to do things he won’t do.

The virtuous layman offers his back and his sweat and not just his checkbook.

His heart is sensitive to God.

He says “amen” in the right places.

He’s not afraid to kneel at the altar.

He prays with authority.

The virtuous layman always keeps a good seat ready for the poor.

He is eager for the church’s resources to be extended out in mission.

He keeps a watchful eye on the church building. He maintains God’s house with the same care and concern he gives his own.

He has keys to every room in the church. He knows how to set up tables, turn on the lights, work the vacuum, and run the sound system.

He maintains a commercial license so he can drive the youth to camp.

The merchants in town honor and respect the virtuous layman.

They all know which church he belongs to; he invites his friends regularly.

The civic leaders respect him and wish there were more men like him in town.

The virtuous layman loves and nurtures his family.

His children think of the church as a second home.

They have heard him talk regularly about his love for God.

His grandchildren honor the legacy of faith he has given them.

His children are blessed by his faithfulness

His wife knows he is a person of integrity.

Although things aren’t always run the way he would like, the virtuous layman has a positive word to say about what’s happening at the church.

Even in troubling times, he refuses to be a source of division.

The church is full of all kinds of people,

But faithful laymen - like Gene Clark – you surpass them all!

Church hoppers are fleeting.

Senior pastors will come and go.

But a virtuous layman who fears the LORD is to be most highly praised.

Let him enter into his rest in Christ’s presence.

Let his deeds be honored in God’s courts.

May he hear from the Lord’s mouth: “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

On the Road to Indy: In Praise of Denominationalism #GA2017

Deb and I arrived late last night for ten days of Nazarene General Assembly meetings in Indianapolis. I feel somewhat embarrassed about my sense of excitement. It is not a good era (at least in America) to be overly committed to one's denomination. American Christians increasingly identify themselves as intentionally non-denominational. The fastest growing churches tend to be independent or non-denominational. Denominations of all kinds are frequently perceived as repressive more than helpful, and too often they probably have been.

I've been a part of conversations in person and on-line leading up to General Assembly that lament what is perceived to be a decreasing level of interest on the part of the average lay-person (and probably pastor too) in the decisions or discussions that will seem so important within the Convention Center in Indy over the next two weeks to those present. As one longtime Nazarene said to me recently, "I'm not sure most people at our church could recognize a General Superintendent if they met one... or be impressed if they did."

Caring deeply for one's denomination seems to be a bit out of vogue. There are times I feel like I'm trying to sell 8-track tapes in an iPod world.

So here are some reasons I think the next two weeks matter.

I'm suspicious of non-denominational accountability.

Recently, I was in a conversation with a couple of friends who were mocking me a bit about being Nazarene. They are both part of cool non-denom churches with chic one-word names and sort of perceive me as quaint. They were asking me all sorts of (cynical) questions about General Assembly and what goes on there... One of them asked, "Does it bother you to be part of a people who vote on their theology?"

It was meant as a "gotcha" slam.

In one of those rare moments when the right answer came at the right moment, I responded, "As opposed to what? Getting the chance to make up my own theology, start my own church, and remain accountable to nothing but the consumer habits of the American worshiper?"

I went on to explain how difficult a process it is for the theology of Church of the Nazarene to change. But more than that, I explained how theology - although rooted in the authority of God's self-revelation (as recorded in the Scripture) and in the history of the Christian faith - is always alive and (like Jesus) being incarnated over and over again in new cultural contexts. I also debunked the myth for them that any church (independent or otherwise) "just preaches the Bible." Every act of teaching, preaching, or even reading the Bible involves interpretation. Just the act of translating the Bible into English involves all kinds of acts of interpretation. NO ONE JUST PREACHES THE BIBLE WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. So the question is do you want to interpret the Word by yourself, or do you want to let a whole bunch of faithful friends (living and dead) from around the world and from different social and political contexts help out and hold you accountable?

I think I'm fairly smart and educated, and I try to be as faithful to God's Word as I know how to be, but I don't trust myself enough to interpret without being intimately tied to a people called the church.

The Church is global but it is lived locally.

The Church of Jesus Christ is much bigger than the Church of the Nazarene and it is obviously dwarfs our little gatherings at Nampa College Church. Yet at the same time not only my experience of, but my opportunity to be the Body of Christ is lived out most clearly through NCC and the CoN. And there is something about being the Body of Christ that can only be learned through the practice of being stuck with other parts.

A person doesn't need to enter into marriage to experience physical intimacy or to procreate, but there is something that a person can only learn - there is something a personal can only become - through living a life of covenant with another person in marriage and in a family.

It may be possible to be a Christian without being committed to stick it out with one particular local church or without connecting to a larger movement like a denomination. But there is something that a person (that the Body of Christ) can only become through living a life of joy and sorrow, forgiveness and transformation, accountability and grace with a particular people called church.

I know I will sound old when I say this, but I sort of miss the days when people were Nazarene and when they moved to a town they found the closest Nazarene church and joined in. As a father of four kids, I get wanting to find a church - no matter the denomination - where my family feels connected and looks forward to being a part. But let's admit that we've become a different kind of people (and we've radically changed the nature of the local church) because we walk into a church wondering what they can give to us as a family rather than asking how the gifts we bring to the body as a family can edify the church.

I've been bought with a price.

I'm also excited to be at General Assembly because I feel obligated to pay something back. I think I would feel this way if I was Free Methodist, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, or some other tribe. The Nazarenes birthed me, raised me, educated me, and are now they're stuck with me.

In all seriousness, there are times when I am struck but an overwhelming sense of gratitude for all the people who've invested in time, in buildings, in curriculum, in education, in prayer, in patience and in countless other ways to the church simply out of love and commitment to Christ. Especially as a person whose entire family ahead of me and now even after me are in ministry, I am constantly in awe of God's goodness expressed through his people. I owe a debt to the people called the Church of the Nazarene that I can never fully repay.

Like any family of origin, the Church of the Nazarene has it's own unique dysfunctions, but I wouldn't be who I am without it. So hand me a ballot...

Why the Last Week of December is Destroying the Church

As a pastor, I hate the pressure associated with year-end giving.

These last few Sundays of the calendar year are like the climactic ending of a mystery novel for pastors. No one knows what’s going to happen next. Every pastor (including me) will know at the end of the next three days whether or not the ministries of their church can continue as normal (or expand) as they had hoped and prayed; or if they are going to have a very challenging board meeting in January and have to start cutting personnel and programming.

I am pastoring a church that is in the midst of sweeping generational and cultural changes. The changes are exciting and nearly killing me at the same time. At PazNaz we are constantly talking about being intergenerational and multi-cultural. For decades First Church has worked hard at being a place where people of different economic standing discover that they are brother and sister. And I think this flagship Nazarene church is learning to love its denominational connection and heritage without making that identity an impediment to people seeking first the kingdom of God.

I also think the church is in the midst of sweeping theological change. In particular, I hope our ecclesiology is changing. I hope that people at PazNaz are beginning to not think of the church as some place that they go but as something that they are.

But this is why year-end giving is killing the church. Let me try to explain…

There are lots of books that have come out over the last few years trying to help pastors and churches deal with the “new normal” of giving. One of the most popular and helpful is Not Your Parents’ Offering Plate: A New Vision for Financial Stewardship by J. Clif Christopher.

Christopher is a former pastor who has now set up a ministry to help churches with fund raising and stewardship. His book is very helpful and I have been given copies of it at several pastor’s meetings.

Like every book of this nature I have read, Christopher quickly addresses the challenge and change that every pastor is experiencing:

In 2006, for the first time in recorded history, gifts to religion fell below 33 percent of charitable giving. Just twenty years ago, gifts to religion amounted to nearly 60 percent of all charitable giving. Not so any longer. Every year, religion continues to get a smaller piece of the charitable pie because church leaders simply do not know how to compete for the charitable dollar.

Christopher is absolutely right. More and more great and worthy organizations are competing for the charitable giving of parishioners and while those agencies and organizations have “stepped up their game” in getting those dollars, the church has lagged behind. He rightly and helpfully suggests that pastors and churches begin to operate differently. Here are some of his suggestions:

• Invite the executive director of one of your community’s first-rate nonprofits to come by and talk about your stewardship committee about how they do fund-raising and how they relate to donors.
• Recognize that donors are different and give and different levels… So send different messages to different levels of givers.
• Spend more time with major donors.
• Think like a college president or the director of advancement for a Christian university: promote the mission, plan for estate giving, and craft compelling capital campaigns.
• Preach directly on money at least four times a year.
• Pay close attention to the giving records and write personal notes of gratitude to faithful givers.

At the bottom-line, his argument can be summed up this way:

• Giving patterns have (and are continuing) to change radically for people in the church.
• People are giving to organizations that match their own missional and transformational concerns and interests.
• The church had better learn quickly from those organizations and copy their practices (and hopefully do them even better) or they will find themselves without any financial support.

Again, I think Christopher on so many levels is really correct and resisting his advice may be like howling at the moon. There are many things that churches need to learn from these kinds of books – especially about expressing gratitude to faithful supporters. I am sure he so absolutely right that if the church doesn’t figure out how to compete for the finances of the faithful that ministry will continue to suffer.

But I am also convinced that putting in the practices (even the “best practices”) of the most Christian, missional, and transformational non-profit organizations may destroy the church.

Here’s the problem: You are what you practice to be. If you spend the day dribbling and shooting a ball you will be a basketball player. If you run around kicking a ball into a goal you will become a soccer player. If you chase a little white ball around, hitting it with funny shaped sticks and trying to get it into a small round hole, you will be a golfer. And If the church starts practicing like it is another in a long list of non-profit organizations, it will become another in a long list of non-profit organizations.

The church is not another charitable organization; it is the Body of Christ.

The church is not just a 501(c)(3) devoted to a common social cause; it is a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation witnessing in its life together to God’s new creation.

The church is not some place we go; it is something that we are. 

Here is what I am convinced is true theologically:

• The church is not one more charitable organization but a distinct new creation people in the world.
• Giving for the Christian is a spiritual practice (a spiritual discipline) that is simply one expression (of many) of being part of that new creation people.
• Practicing giving as a discipline within the church helps to form the identity that we are the church. We give to the church as part of the church not because we have been persuaded that it is a good mission investment but because it expresses who we are and reflects that where our treasure is our heart is also.

I know that is idealistic. And I know fewer and fewer people think that way. But maybe they don’t think that way, in part, because the church stopped practicing that way. Perhaps we have become what we have practiced to become. 

So this is why I think the last week of December is destroying the church. It’s not that some people give much of their tithe at the end of the year. I know that the complexity of the economic life of some in the congregation makes year-end giving a necessary habit.

But our practices reflect what we believe. And our current practices - that include having to compete with all of the other great and worthy non-profit organizations for year-end dollars - make the church just one more non-profit organization. I know that as a pastor I will have to heed much of the advice of experts like Christopher (primarily because I feel the tremendous weight of keeping the pastoral staff employed). But I fear it could be part of the church’s undoing.

The Death of a Friend

Trustworthy friends are a strong shelter, whoever finds one has found a treasure.

Trustworthy friends have no price, and no one can estimate their worth.

Trustworthy friends are life's medicine, and those who fear the Lord will find them.

Those who fear the Lord will direct their friendships well... (Sirach 6:14-17)

I have been carrying an inner sense of sadness this week since finding out that a dear friend from college days, Tim Shea, died on Monday.

Tim was in many ways the leader of the circle of friends that became a source of identity and place of shelter during my first couple of years of college. Tim's room was usually the place where our group of guys living in Chapman Hall would gather for small group Bible study, sharing, and prayer. 

There was a group of Freshman girls who completed our gang of friends. Together we spent most of the waking hours of our first year in college together. We ate together, studied together, skiied together, played intramural softball together, drove up to the hot springs together, watched this late night talk show hosted by a young and hip David Letterman together,... etc... etc.

We also grieved together. The last night of our Freshman year, our group drove to Boise for dinner. After dinner we went to a local park, I broke out my guitar, and we sang praise choruses and prayed for one another. We all went our separate ways counting the days until we would be back together in the fall. On the way home two of the girls were in tragic car accident and one of the central leaders of our little pack - Tammy Borgman - was killed. Just a few days after we had left each other in the joy of youth, we were back together holding one another in the midst of heart-wrenching grief and faith-shaking questions.

As is often the case, our group never quite recovered the close-knit nature we had that first year. People get into serious relationships. New friends enter in. People stop living in the same dorm. Life happens. Yet, as I think about each of those "Freshman friends" there is something akin to a "band of brothers" feeling that I have for them. I believe it is not just because of the good things we experienced, but it is primarily because we shared that significant loss together.

Tim and I were both preparing for ministry in college. I was always envious of Tim's heart. When I look back on those first couple of years I always think of Tim as the leader because there was a bigness and a maturity about him that was more than I certainly had at that time. I knew then that I had the skills and the head for ministry, but I always wanted Tim's heart.

Just a few weeks ago Debbie and I took our oldest son Caleb to Point Loma for his first year of college. As we were pulling out of San Diego I was praying for various parts of his year. First on my list of requests was that God would lead him to friends that would help the trajectory of his life be set in directions that would honor him. My guess is that my parents prayed a very similar prayer for me as they drove away from Nampa and headed back to Seattle. I am convinced that my friendship with Tim was one of the ways God answered their prayer. I will be forever glad for my college friendship with him.

I love the text above from Sirach about the value of friends. It's not everyday that a Protestant quotes from the Apocrypha, but the wisdom writer's words about our need for trustworthy friends resounds with God's truth.

I will admit that some of my sadness in hearing about Tim's passing has to do with my own sense of guilt about not living into Sirach's wisdom well. One of the blessings of my life has been the number of places I have lived and the great number of amazing communities of people I have lived within for a time. I am truly blessed with friends almost everywhere in the world. 

The curse of the continually transitioning life so many of us live is that although we have a quantity of friends, the qualities of our friendships suffer. I am often envious of those who have stayed in one place and have friendships with people that have extended over decades and have a depth to them that only happens when you laugh and cry, rejoice and suffer together.

In am sad that I had not made contact with Tim for several years. In a strange sense of personal irony I was surfing through Tim's Facebook page on Saturday and came very close to sending him an email message. I had heard through the grapevine that Tim had gone through a number of recent challenges and I was trying to piece together the recent events of his life through pictures and posts. I regret not reaching out. We all carry around a mythology about all the time we have left to do all those things that can be put off until tomorrow.

I wish there was still time for us to catch up on each other's lives. I am sad that there is not. But I am a "prisoner of hope" that we will be graciously given by God an eternity to carry forward the friendships that we often fail to make the time to be trustworthy to in these limited days.

Thanks for being a trustworthy friend, Tim. See you again soon.

Cue the Locusts

Pay attention, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such-and-such a town. We will stay there a year, buying and selling, and making a profit." You don't really know about tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for only a short while before it vanishes. Here's what you ought to say: "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that."

- James 4:13-15

 

This last week has certainly been a wild one in the Pasadena area. Debbie and I have often commented that one of the reasons we like living in Southern California is because we seemingly get a different natural disaster (or human disaster like a riot) about once a year which forces all of our friends and family to get in contact with us to make sure we are okay. We have found that it's a good way to maintain long distance relationships.

The winds last Wednesday night into Thursday morning were simply awesome. Not in a skater sense of "that's awesome dude," but in the sense of truly forming a sense of overwhelming awe. Driving around and witnessing the destruction the winds caused around Monrovia, Sierra Madre, and Pasadena has been awe-inducing. Trees that have been standing longer than any of the currently living humans have been around fell to the winds with their deep and complex root systems now exposed for all to see.

This certainly wasn't the way those of us at PazNaz hoped to make the national news, but the destruction of the roof caused by what some speculate to have been 100 mph wind gusts or better was one of the most spectacular things I have ever seen. Long, heavy sheets of metal had been twisted into every conceivable shape and were scattered in no discernible pattern.

About 1:30am Thursday morning the three of us (and the dogs) with bedrooms at the back of the house were awakened by the flying debris hitting the windows and so we huddled together in the front of the house praying that the trees would stay up and the roof would stay put. In that moment I realized something critically important. At a very significant level we are all powerless in the face of greater powers. I had no way to stop the wind. No way to keep the trees up. No way to make the shingles on the roof stay in place. If the winds wanted to continue until everything clinging to land had been blown into the Pacific I suppose that it could. And there would be nothing available in any of our humanness to stop its force.

Call me Exodus obsessed, but I couldn't help but think about Pharaoh Thursday morning while I laid fearful in the dark. I couldn't help but think about Pharaoh with all of his power and wealth, Pharaoh with all of his mythology of universal control, huddling behind a wall in his palace powerless to stop another of the plagues sent by Yahweh through Moses. Apparently one of my staff members at church thought of Pharaoh also because as we were trying to figure out how to pick up the pieces at the church Thursday morning, one of them said, "It seemed so Apocalyptic last night that I felt like someone should say, 'Okay, stop the wind, cue the locusts.'"

Some of the apocalyptic talk came about because I have been preaching through Mark 13 during this Advent season. We are two weeks into Advent and I will admit that it has been a challenge. These days Advent has really become an extended celebration of Christmas filled with frankly sappy songs, stories, and movies about family, mistletoe, and gentle drifts of snow on the roof. I like all of those Hallmark-ish kind of things, but it has been really hard to figure out how to fit biblical texts about the desecrating sacrilege in the Temple, the moon turning to darkness, and the stars falling from the heavens around tinsel, baby Jesus, and cute little children dressed like shepherds and angels.

The advent of the Santa Ana winds may have saved my preaching this year. The season of Advent really is about being reminded that things that seem permanent - Rome, Caesar Augustus, Herod, taxes, Temples, over-populated cities, Black Fridays, Cyber-Mondays, BCS standings, stock market downturns, presidential politics, and continuing wars on terror - are not only temporal but are quietly being subverted by a kingdom that actually is eternal. The Temple becomes rubble, the moon turns to darkness, and the stars fall because another empire that believes itself to be eternal (an empire that drinks the same kool-aid as Pharaoh) is being replaced by a new heavens and a new earth.

So in a strange way I'm thankful for the Advent Santa Ana winds that blew away an awful lot of what seemed permanent in the San Gabriel Valley. It is an important reminder that we are very, very temporal and that we live most of our days living out Pharaoh's same myth of control. James is right. Our language should more often reflect what ought to be a deeper conviction. We more frequently ought to say: "If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that."

I found myself on Thursday morning deeply thankful for God's mercy in not allowing the winds to keep blowing. But I also found myself more grateful for what I do have, grateful for the kingdom work I have been gifted with today, and grateful that I am ultimately free from the burdensome myth that I am ultimately the one that controls all the outcomes of my existence. 

It took ten plagues to try and teach Pharaoh that he was not in control. His hard heart never learned the lesson and so his mythology of over-blown self-importance came to an ugly and unfortunate end at the Red Sea. I'm sure by this time next week I too will be right back into my self-reliant mythology of control, but I am thankful for this moment of grace to try and break out of my Pharaoh-complex. But I'm sure it will be back soon. So, cue the locusts.

A Charitable Discourse

I had the privilege of teaching a seminar on preaching this week with about 40 really gifted pastors from around the Southwest. In one of the sessions together we got to talking about how preachers should speak from the pulpit about social issues that have political aspects to them. It was the clear consensus from just about everyone in the room - including myself - that most of us who preach regularly get apprehensive when it comes to preaching about various social issues, not because we don't believe we have something from God and from his Word to say about the issues, but because we all feel trapped between extreme voices within the Church on both sides of the various hot cultural issues of the day.

Just this week I read an interview, in one of the various ministry magazines, with a pastor/preacher who is highly active in various social and political issues. In the interview the pastor was quoted as saying that any pastor who will not speak out on political issues is not being tactful but is displaying the utmost in whimpishness and spinelessness.

At one level he is probably correct. Those of us who shy away from addressing social and political issues in our preaching probably do so in part out of fear. But the problem for me is that the Christian leaders who are most vocal about the need for pastors to be more outspoken in the pulpit are usually closely aligned with one party or the other. So I think what they want are those who agree with their particular political views and political methodologies to speak up because these same leaders are usually very critical, and often resort to name-calling, against those who speak up but who take a different stance, or advocate a different methodological approach, than theirs. I may wrong, but in this particular case I don't think the pastor in the interview is really interested in having all pastors preach on social issues. I think his primary interest is that pastors agree with his political and social interpretation of the gospel, allign with his political party, accept his political methodologies, and then preach on social issues. All others are whimps or heretics.

The criticism for pastors comes from both the conservative and liberal sides. It is not unusual for pastor/preachers to get attacks from those who think the Church is being too close-minded or too legalistic in its stance on various social concerns. Not too long ago I had to decide to take a pastoral stand on how the particular church I lead would approach a significant social issue. After I (with the advice of other pastors and in conversation with the church board) decided how we would address the issue. We in essence decided that although we agreed deeply with the conservative point of view on the issue, we did not share in many of the conservative tactics and so we as a church would take a different approach. I spoke clearly on the issue, but as a church we decided to work toward the issue in the way we thought God was leading us to go. Predictably, I ended up taking hits from both sides. I took criticism from some on the left for being too narrow-minded, and I received a letter from a prominent conservative Christian leader calling me the low point in the 100+ year history of PazNaz. It wasn't enough to agree with him in principle. I had to agree with him in practice also.

With that in mind you can understand why a room full of 40 preachers this week was looking for help in figuring out how to approach social and political issues in sermons. As preachers we all want to be faithful to what we believe is right and is in line with a Christlike approach to the gospel, but it is very difficult to do that in a church world that increasingly reflects in its dialogue the extreme tensions found in the political dialogue of the day. The loudest voices on both margins dominate the political and theological conversations and those of us somewhere in the middle get drowned out.

That is why I am so thankful for a brand new book written by Dr. Dan Boone - A Charitable Discourse: Talking About the Things that Divide Us. Dan is the president of Trevecca Nazarene University and he is someone that I consider to be one of the most thoughtful, articulate, and courageous leaders in the Church of the Nazarene.

In this new book Dan argues that the important conversations that we need to have in the Church don't take place as often as they should because of the intimidation caused by the voices on the margins. In the first section of the book entitled "Jihad in the Church" (a section that I wish was required reading for every Evangelical in America), Dan covers seven tactics used by people on extreme both sides to label, villify, misquote, and intimidate others.

I had the privilege of reading the manuscript for this book several months ago before it came out and I will admit that I wept through the first seven chapters. As a child of the Church who is in the middle of my tenure as a pastor, I am beyond burdened about the tone of dialogue and rhetoric going on in the Evangelical world. I remember reading Richard Mouw's book Uncommon Decency almost two decades ago and resonating with the similar themes of civility in Christian dialogue that he highlights there. But in just a handful of years the advent of email and the internet has meant that extreme voices don't even have to spend $.49 to send a letter anymore. They can simply click a button and send statements of destruction literally around the world to thousands of people in an instant. (And once that button is pushed you can't get it back). There was a day when a person had to be biblically and theologically qualified to get their work published by a publishing company. Today self-publishing can be done easily, and is done regularly. And one does not need to be thoughtful to build a web page or start a blog. (This blog being no exception). Any theological illiterate can create a web page and become the faceless source of "discernment" for congregations of Google-ers.

As Boone points out there are at least two tragedies when dialogue in the Church reflects that of the political culture of today. The first is the destruction of ministries and the divisions formed in the Church. Especially in the Wesleyan tradition we have forgotten that important motto often associated with John Wesley: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, but in all things charity."

Secondly, and more central to his book, when we as the Church can't have thoughtful conversations about the most pressing issues of the day, our children go looking for places that will talk tactfully and openly about those issues. However, most of those places are not shaped by the framework of the gospel and so while the Church fights, our children walk out because we are not perceived by them as relevant to their lives or to their world.

The rest of the book takes on several issues in a thoughtful way. Dan takes on women in ministry, alcohol, sexuality, homosexuality, science and religion, and the emerging Church. Each of these chapters comes out of conversations he has helped lead on the campus and Trevecca and they are extremely thoughtful. These chapters are very courageous and he will take hits from both sides for what he writes. I don't agree with everything he writes in this section. But that's the point isn't it? We can model thoughtful dialogue with each other on these issues. We can trust each other's hearts, even if we question each other's heads.

The last section gives really helpful practices and virtues that can help us as Christians learn "the more excellent way" of charitable discourse.

Thanks, Dan, for your courage in giving voice to some of us who are trying to walk faithfully with you in the via media between the extreme voices in the culture and in the Church. I am encouraging every believer I know to pick this book up and find some friends to discuss it with. I would like to make it required reading at PazNaz. You might not like everything Dan has to say. But we can talk about it. Can't we?

Transformational Youth Ministry

The four boys in the Daniels family all got to go to Guatemala this summer. Caleb and Noah spent over two weeks with 60 people from the church on an inter-generational Work and Witness trip. Jonah and I jumped in for the last week, so we got in on the tail end of the blessing.

The trip was transformational for a lot of reasons for those involved. Certainly the work was significant and the dire needs the team encountered will have a lasting impact. But it was life-changing for both the youth and the adults involved on the trip to connect with one another. If current studies are correct, young Christian young people who make it into adulthood holding on to their faith do so inpart because they have four or five significant adult mentors (other than their parents) as they grow up. I also think that the interaction was important for the adults involved. In mentoring relationships (as for teachers) it could be argued that the mentor learns more in the process than the one being mentored.

The idea that youth ministry needs to focus on being transformational is not necessarily new but it does seem that better tools are being developed for leaders. We're excited at PazNaz to be connected to the "Sticky Faith" project that the Fuller Youth Institute is developing. If you are looking for some good resources and thoughts check out FYI: www.fulleryouthinstitue.org. And we're also excited to be a host site for Barefoot Ministries "Enroute" training. The Barefoot training seminar will be held at PazNaz on September 25. For more information go here: http://barefoottraining.com/

This is a critical time for churches to know how to minister to our young people well. Blessings on all of you who are devoting your life to helping young people experience God's transforming grace.

CoN Core Values: We Are Christian

Earlier this summer I taught a series of classes on the three core values of the Church of the Nazarene: We are Christian, We are Holiness, and We are Missional. I thought I would write a bit about my reflections on each one as I have an opportunity.

The church's statement regarding the core value of being Christian reads as follows:

As members of the Church Universal, we join with all true believers in proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in embracing the historic Trinitarian creedal statements of Christian faith. We value our Wesleyan-Holiness heritage and believe it to be a way of understanding the faith that is true to Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience.

There are a couple of aspects of that statement that stand out to me.

The first is that the CoN believes its unique Wesleyan-Holiness heritage "to be a way of understanding faith..." That little article is extremely important theologically. The CoN does not believe itself to be the way of understanding faith but a way of understanding faith that is true to the quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience). Personally, I like the humility built into that claim. It allows those of us in the CoN to be proud to embrace our theological heritage without making claims of exclusivity to Truth. First and foremost it gives us space to recognize the truthful existence of other brothers and sisters in Christ.

I believe good Nazarenes are ecumenical in spirit. Randy Maddox in his book Responsible Grace argues that the Anglican tradition out of which Wesley's Methodism arose was formed from a fascinating blend of Protestant, Catholic, and even Eastern Orthodox theology and practice. Therefore, the children of Wesley - like the CoN - ought to find rich places of dialogue and agreement with Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. It isn't that there aren't areas of disagreement - some of them quite significant - between ourselves and others. But there ought to be a spirit of unity emanating from Nazarenes - who claim that one of their core values is to be "Christian" - that supercedes whatever divisions exist among those who claim Christ as Lord.

The second significant aspect of this core value for me is the affirmation of the "Trinitarian creedal statements" as the basis for agreement and embrace across denominational and traditional lines.

My favorite section of the Manual of the CoN (yes, I have a favorite section) is the section on "The Church" found in paragraphs 23-27. This brief section follows after the Articles of Faith and it describes the essential nature of the church. The first three paragraphs define the church universally, and then severally, and then locally as a denomination. But the fourth paragraph is the one I find so significant. Here it is:

Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to church membership rest upon the fact of their being regnerate, we would require only such avowals of belief as are essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief in the follow brief statements to be sufficient. We believe:

1. In one God - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore, inclined to evil, and that continually.

4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost.

5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers.

8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.

What is so interesting to me in this section is the emphasis on the shared experience of the regenerate life as the primary place of commonality and unity of the church and then on only "such avowals of belief as are essential to Christian experience." I believe this statement affirms my argument that the CoN at least attempts to be a "big tent" in which believers try to have unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity or love in all things.

I fear, however, in our current political and social climate, that the church will be unable to actually live out this core value. It seems that every day there are new litmus tests of orthodoxy that pop up. Some of my favorites are: premillennialism vs. postmillennialism, young earth creationism v. theistic evolution, crisis v. process/growth views of sanctification, affirming only one particular view of the atonement (usually substitution) v. affirming substitution, moral influence, and Christus Victor understandings of the atonement in relationship to each other, inerrancy v. infallibility views of Scripture, etc. Someone once told me that his litmus test of orthodoxy was whether or not a person believed there wa a singular author of Isaiah (and not three as many OT scholars hold). There will always be another litmus test to add.

It's not the development of new litmus tests that concern me. I actually find the various theological conversations listed above to be significant and exciting. What I find most troubling is the manner of dialogue the church is learning. I believe we are taking our communication cues from political talk-radio and political cable news. (In fact I think it is primarily politics and not theology that is most dividing the church - but I'll save that for another day). One could argue that the primary goal of national politics is for one party to stay in power over the other - not to govern justly. The primary means of victory in today's political climate is to (a) exaggerate the claims of the other party, (b) villify one's opponent by naming them with an extreme label, and then (c) maintaining an irrational fear of the "other" through misrepresentation and rhetorical spin. So the political modus operandi is for one party to wait for the other party to say something that can be spun (and de-contextualized if necessary) to fit into the exaggerated narrative repeatedly told in order to villify the "other" while keeping or gaining power for one's own perspective.

I don't lose a lot of sleep over that because I sort of expect that from the world. But unfortunately the church is mirroring the tactics it is learning from Fox News and MSNBC. If we can label someone a liberal or a fundamentalist (and get the label to stick) then we have won. Conversation, understanding, friendship, and even basic Christian civility are not viewed as virtues but as threats to "Truth." In the pursuit of Truth, however, I am amazed at how often truth-telling is not considered important. Not long ago I wrote to a "web-teacher" who I knew was regularly mis-quoting a particular Christian leader as a way of forwarding their own theological agenda. I wrote them and showed them how in three or four different ways they were clearly misrepresenting the person they were quoting. In fact, in several places they were quoting the person in such a de-contexutalized way that they were describing them as saying the exact opposite of what the person had actually written. The response I got was this, "That person is so dangerous to the church I can't believe that you would be concerned with me mis-quoting them."

I very much like the ecumenical spirit that is reflected in the core value of being Christian. But holding to that value is a greater challenge than it sounds. Conservatives tend to question the hearts of progressives while progressives tend to question conservatives' heads. Both sides are guilty of pushing out or trivializing the other. It truly does take the Spirit of God to unify us as the Body of Christ in the world. But we are Christian.

The Death of the Emerging Church

A little over a year ago a friend of mine and I were invited to lead a seminar at Nazarene General Assembly assessing the Emerging Church and its relationship to the denomination. I said then, I have written in several places, and I will repeat it here, I have never considered myself to be part of the EC. (It’s hard to truly be emerging when you pastor the second oldest church in the denomination. We still have a choir and orchestra for goodness sake J). I have, however, considered myself a somewhat sympathetic critic of the movement. I consider my own position to be a Wesleyan version of the Reformed position Jim Belcher takes in his book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional.

Anyway, a year ago, the EC conversation was THE buzz. People loved it or hated it. They considered it the hope of the church or the seed of its destruction. When I wrote my five-part series on the EC a year ago my blog received hundreds of hits each day with people wanting to read all they could about this important movement.

A year later, I can’t find a whole lot of people who care. In particular I can’t find any scholarly folk who want to talk about it. One of my theological colleagues here at APU summed it up well in a conversation last week. “For all practical purposes the EC movement is dead. It is over and done. Does anybody care about it anymore?”

Oh sure, there are still plenty of people talking and blogging about the EC. There are a few seminars still going on with either pro-emerging or anti-emerging overtones to them. But it is my prediction that one year from now even those lingering conversations will largely have faded into the distance. I would agree with my colleague. The EC movement is essentially dead. I wish I was the first one to make this declaration, but I’m not. Michael Patton and Anthony Bradley have already written nice obituaries for the Emerging Church [http://online.worldmag.com/2010/04/14/farewell-emerging-church-1989-2010/ and http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/obituary-the-emerging-church-1994-2009/]

But how and why did the EC die? I’m sure there are a lot of reasons we could point to, but let me reflect on a few (in no particular order).

Capitalism

I believe that it was philosopher Herbert Marcuse who argued that revolutionary movements couldn’t last long in a capitalist society because eventually the market swallows them up. For example, the hippies in the 60s may have been trying to rebel against society but eventually the musicians who sang at Woodstock played on The Tonight Show, you could start buying tie-dye t-shirts at The Gap, and the revolution is over because what was outside the system ends up being swallowed up and becoming part of the system.

In like manner, the prophetic voice of the EC was largely killed by the marketing of the movement by the Christian publishing machine. Once the EC became its own industry it was no longer a movement but a “trend.” And trends are pretty short-lived. In the increasingly market-oriented Christian world, people move on to the “next thing” in a hurry. Joe and Jane average Christian who started out praying the prayer of Jabez, only to then be filled with a fresh wind and fresh fire for a while, have wondered what Jesus would do, they have been purpose-driven for a season, they hung out in The Shack for a while, they’ve been emerging for a bit, and now it’s time for whatever is next. So good luck finding a publisher who will print anything today with “emerging” in the title because, as the kids would say, “that’s so 2009.”

Liberalism

Unfortunately, many of the prophecies that the EC leaders were just early twentieth-century theological liberals in new clothing turned out to be true. I think self-proclaimed leaders of the EC went further theologically than those who were following could or would go. Personally, I think the mistake many of them made was when they left local church ministry and became travelling speakers focused on publishing careers. I am convinced that it is dangerous to be able to write or say whatever your publisher will let you get away with. In my own case I find it vitally important for me to stay accountable to the people I pastor and to remain under the authority of the denomination in which I’m ordained. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate those who keep the conversation lively at the boundaries of the faith. I do. But I think those discussions only stay grounded when they are ultimately tied to the historic Body of Christ in some tangible (and local) way.

Particularly in the areas of atonement, justification, homosexuality, divine judgment, and the exclusivity of Christ, some of the most prominent EC leaders went further than those of us tied to historical communities of faith would or could go. I think that forms of deconstruction are healthy but only if they lead to new and better construction. I’m not sure some of the EC leaders ever got around to helping construct a faith – at least a faith that was still tied to the historical faith.

It is not unusual, by the way, for reforming movements to go too far. When the Reformation began to take hold, Luther had to denounce his colleague Andreas Karlstadt for using the Reformation to incite the peasants to revolt. Luther believed that the people needed to react against the oppressive authority of the Church, but what Karlstadt was doing by inciting violence was too far for Luther.

I think there are many who have either supported or defended the EC movement who feel deeply disappointed in some of the leaders for pushing the boundaries farther than they or their local church could go.

The Resiliency of the Institutional Church

It is beginning to look like the initial reports of the death of the institutional church were greatly exaggerated. In fact, what seems to be happening is not the death of the established church but a revitalization of many denominations in response to many of the critiques by the EC. I would point to someone like Tim Keller and the Redeemer Presbyterian church planting movement as one example (of many) of the revitalization of established and even mainstream denominations.

The reality of postmodernity does not mean that people will just be suspicious of institutions and authority, it also means that postmodern isolated individuals will go looking for a movement bigger than the solitary self and with historical roots deeper than what is happening right now. I think, in the end, rather than having a new church emerge from the cultural changes taking place we will find that the Spirit of God helped the church respond to the needs of shifting cultural contexts.

Not only that, but as is always the case, the strongest churches within the movement became institutions themselves. In his recent sermon on the resurrection (from April 4) Rob Bell, founder of Mars Hill Bible Church, admitted that although Mars Hill started out to be a different kind of church without the baggage of the watered-down “seeker” churches and the religious legalism of “traditional” churches, that Mars Hill had become a big institution that wounded people in similar ways as the churches many Gen-Xers left behind.

The Critics Jumped the Shark

At least in my own tradition I believe the most vocal critics of the EC helped to kill the movement, not by defeating it, but by naming everything and everyone they didn’t like as part of the EC. If everyone and everything is emerging then no one and nothing is emerging. It was clear to me that when someone like Dallas Willard started getting labeled by the critics as “emerging” that the critics had officially jumped the shark and that the term had essentially become meaningless.

Fear is an amazing tool to use for rallying people together. Some of the blog critics have learned the politics of labeling and de-contextualization well from the world. What conservative fear-pundits did to Shirley Sherrod has been done for the last couple of years and is still being done on a regular basis on “concerned” blogs each day. But it is my sense that most people are starting to catch on and are growing tired of the extreme rhetoric.

I think what some of the critics have failed to realize is that even the average Christian person is discerning enough to know that one doesn’t have to agree with everything a person says in order to receive something helpful from them. For example, although I am a Protestant one of my spiritual heroes remains St. Francis of Assisi. I’m not Reformed, but I find Calvin’s Commentaries and C.S. Lewis’ writings very helpful. I’m not Lutheran, but Jurgen Moltmann has been highly influential for me theologically. There are parts of The Purpose Driven Life that I strongly disagree with, but I’m glad to call Rick Warren a friend and I will find any way I can to partner with him in many of the great causes he is leading in Jesus’ name. I am a card-carrying Wesleyan, but some of the things John Wesley did, said, and believed were simply nuts. The only person I’ve read that I agreed with at every point is Jesus. The broad brush with which many of the critics use the label “emerging” has not only made the word meaningless but it shows a lack of faith on the part of the faithful to be discerning in the light of Christ.

It has certainly been no fun to be a target of the most vocal “concerned” critics. Although I have repeatedly resisted the label “emerging,” and have openly expressed my concerns about the EC, I have been painted by some with that label for refusing to take an all or nothing stance with the EC. I have certainly found the targeting painful and have found my attempts at discussion with the most vocal critics completely unfruitful. If someone as thoughtful and insightful as Dan Boone couldn’t make any headway with them, I don’t know what I was thinking… Nevertheless, I have found the only thing worse than being a target of their concerns is to have them become one’s advocate. As I think a church leader friend of mine recently found out, the only thing worse than being their enemy is to be their friend. Another friend sent me a very helpful article on “pathological antagonists” that was an enormous blessing. It helped me realize it is easy to become someone’s enemy if that person’s existence is defined by the need to have enemies.

The Global Church

As compassionate as it has attempted to be with other cultures, the EC could never get past the fact that its leaders (and most of its followers) are white, middle-class, and highly educated. The new reality that the Church of Jesus Christ has to wrestle with is not that all the ways that it is postmodern, post-liberal, or any other “post,” but the fact that it is global. I am excited to be a delegate to the Laussane 3 Conference on Global Evangelism being held in Cape Town in October. I am both excited and anxious to hear the questions of the global community of faith.

I still believe much of what I wrote a year ago about the church’s need to listen to some of what the EC leaders were saying at the time. For example, I still think we need multiple ways of understanding the cross of Christ; not just as a substitution for sin’s penalty but also as the call to discipleship and the victory of Jesus over patterns of sin and violence. I think we need the optimism of grace and a better eschatology that includes the redemption of all of creation. I think we need to stand on the Truth of the Christian faith but hold it with the humility of those who see through a glass darkly. I think we need to react against the political co-opting of the American church that has largely taken place. (When people tell me they would become a Christian if they didn’t have to become a Republican, you know something has gone wrong). And I still believe we need to seek first the kingdom of God and live within the present reality of God’s reign.

These were all aspects of the EC conversation but they certainly aren’t exclusive to the EC. In many ways they have been part of the various reforming movements of the Church throughout its history. That is the part that we all must understand about the Church. It is reformed and always reforming. I think that the most ungracious critics of any movement that comes along, like the EC, want to point to a time of purity of faith, belief, and practice and make it the standard from which there can be no deviations. I’m not sure when that time of perfection would have been for not even the NT church falls in that category. They were a mess too. The church is reformed and always reforming. The EC movement stimulated conversation for a time and may have enacted some reforms both in favor of and in reaction to its leadership. But the kingdom of God goes on and we are ready for the Spirit’s next reforming.